Is the federal income tax unconstitutional?

Answer 1

the tax law has been amended in 1913 i think- but in order for it to become law - it had to be ratified by the states - which up to today - this Gov. of ours and the IRS has not show the American people the document which proves its been ratified into law - they say it was and they say it is - and it shows on the constitution - but the actual document which shows the states that ratified this amendment - no one has ever seen it -

that to me proves that its not a legal law - and the supreme court has ruled in many cases that it is unconstitutional - an American citizen is not required to pay income taxes on wages earned - -- to understand this - you really need to learn the history of this country - do research on it and come to your own conclusion - did you know that by signing the 1040 tax return that everyone is made to belieave that you have to file - the moment you sign that form - you give up your 5th amendment rigths - i never knew this before either - there is alot WE THE PEOPLE DONT KNOW - and they like to keep it that way - do the research -

The answer above...is completely ridiculous. The Supreme Court has not "ruled in many cases" that the Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional. I defy the author of the answer above to name just one instance in which a US citizen has been deprived of their Fifth Amendment rights (right to due process of law, to not incriminate yourself through testimony, right to a Grand Jury for capital crimes, freedom from double jeopardy) because they filled out a 1040 tax return form. That idea is, quite literally, incredible. The author above advises you to do the research, but provides none of his own for you to double check. Please don't take my word for it that the Income Tax is as legal as Baseball, check my facts. I have actually provided you with...

Some very solid reasons why the Federal Income Tax is 100% Constitutional

1) The Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes.

2) The "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution (Art. 1 Section 8, cl. 18) gives Congress the power to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." All laws, limited only by the words "necessary" and "proper." Congress has a lot of power.

3) Those "foregoing powers," once again, include the power to lay and collect taxes.

4) In Article 9 Section 1, many people believe the language stating "No...direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken," means that all taxes must be apportioned. This is incorrect. The sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution scraps that idea with this language, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (Emphasis added, duh.) The 16th Amendment is just as much part of the Constitution as the 1st Amendment, regardless of when it was passed or which bankers someone thinks pushed it through. The fact is that it was passed, ratified, and unchallenged by the Supreme Court, which has the power to overturn legislation it deems unconstitutional (see Marbury v. Madison).

5) For those who argue that "the 16th Amendment wasn't even ratified by six of the states." Please read Article V of the US Constitution. You only need 3/4 of the states to ratify a new amendment before it becomes law. 42 of the 48 states at that time ratified this amendment. Simple math will undoubtedly lead you to the conclusion that 42 is indeed at least 3/4 of 48. As to the author above stating that the document itself does not exist...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:16th_Amendment_Pg1of1_AC.jpg How about checking the NATIONAL ARCHIVES? Have further doubts? Check out this case from 1985, which slaps down every single argument against the 16th amendment that is generally advanced by tax protesters http://www.quatloos.com/taxscams/protcase/house.htm Hmmm, maybe I should find a link to that case that isn't on a tax protest website...Sorry, it's been 100 years, the ink is well dry on the page, this amendment is going nowhere. Get over it.

6) In addition to the text of the Constitution itself, there have been some notable Supreme Court decisions on this issue. One is Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. The holding in that case, articulated by Justice Butler, clearly states "It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment (the 16th) to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". (Copied from another website and verified in a con law textbook)

Other cases to look at are the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, and the more recent Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. Wikipedia generally has very good pages on Supreme Court cases and trust me it is easier than reading a Constitutional Law textbook.

7)Something that should carry quite a lot of weight in evidence is the fact that no judge and very few lawyers would ever argue that the income tax is beyond the scope of the Constitutional powers given to Congress. Why is this? Because judges tend to be very smart people who have studied these things far more closely than the vast majority of non-law professionals. And lawyers tend to only bring cases that have a legitimate basis for recovery. If they waste the time of the court with challenging the Constitutionality of the income tax, they can be sanctioned by the judge. This is a serious issue that lawyers always must consider when filing a complaint. They ask themselves, is this case a legitimate issue of fact or law for a judge or jury to decide on? If they think the answer is "no" then you sure as hell aren't going to court. The fact that this is rarely challenged in court testifies to the truth that it is established law in this country, recognized as such by the very community we entrust with best knowing the law- judges and attorneys.

8) The fact that many people serve prison terms for failing to pay their taxes is further evidence that the law takes taxation seriously. Do you really believe that all three branches of national government AND your local police force AND your state legislators AND also some shadowy monopolists are all in on some giant Income Tax conspiracy to rob you of your earnings? Well, if they are, it's totally legal, too bad. If you are slightly more balanced, perhaps you realize that it's legal anyway and that is why it isn't challenged by legislatures or courts.

9) Is the tax code convoluted? Yes. Is it indecipherable? Not to some people, obviously, since my accountant seems to get my taxes done without the IRS hassling me. Is it illegal? Not in the slightest, but go ahead and try fighting it if you feel it's worth your time. Frankly there are more important issues in the world that you could affect positive change in right now, instead of trying to wriggle out of paying taxes. If you enjoy all the freedoms of the Constitution but reject the idea of paying taxes to help ensure them, as is required of you by Congress under the authority of that same Constitution, you'd have to be a pretty conflicted person. So get out there and fight against real oppression!